-
0 Votes3 Posts644 Views
-
1 Votes8 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes39 Posts9k Views
-
0 Votes11 Posts2k Views
-
1 Votes31 Posts8k Views
-
0 Votes5 Posts821 Views
-
2 Votes67 Posts41k Views
-
0 Votes4 Posts785 Views
-
0 Votes5 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes43 Posts20k Views
-
0 Votes2 Posts629 Views
-
0 Votes8 Posts1k Views
-
1 Votes5 Posts1k Views
-
5 Votes5 Posts3k Views
-
1 Votes2 Posts597 Views
-
0 Votes5 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes3 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes4 Posts744 Views
-
0 Votes11 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes6 Posts3k Views
Recent Posts
-
@alkexr I primarily play evil on the map. Currently, it seems to have too much of an advantage because of the multi-hit units and more units than in prior version. I suppose some balance changes are coming?
Also, do ranged units still do a hit on flying units like they used to? If so, I think keeping flank is a must because that is pretty much one of the main strategies for evil to counter massed archers responding to flying nazgul/dragons. Also, having cheap goblin archers in a stack is probably one of evil's best ways to deal with eagle spam.
-
Hi @alkexr, thanks for the update!
Hope things are going well for you and you can spend a bit of time on the map

One question on the removal of mechanical variety. You are planning to remove flanking vs ranged but you want to introduce/keep/adapt charge vs. spearwall. This seems a little weird to me. I think I understand where you are coming from but charge is very similar to flanking in that it's mechanically different but not strategically (in your sense of the word).
"Ambush" seems like an interesting idea to add a strategic option. It seems to be delivering what you want to achieve. "Scouting" on the other hand has the problem that there is no upside to it. It is purely a reaction while ambush has no downside. (And please don't buff the elven rangers even more by giving them another ability, they are already arguably the best unit in your map.)
Retreating heroes might work well. I don't think it will make bringing a mage or a balrog the right move but it can make it less of a bad investement (in particular if the balrog can finally affect the foes it will actually be fighting). If dragons can retreat like submarines, though, they will be way too strong/unkillable imho.
The changes to charge seem a mixed bag. I might be thin ice to comment without having seen/tested the prototyp but ithe new charge seems overly complicated for a mechanic that was very weak and easy to counter in the past (the targeted attack against them meant "charge" was a liability and it was better not to build chargers at all in many circumstances). The new charge is a lot stronger just by not making formation/spearwall a targeted attack (excellent change) but the rest seems very hard to keep in mind/consider when doing some rough calculations. It just does not seem to add much in terms of depth to balance it out.
Siege was/is an excellent ability from a mechanical point of view imho. I would not make it weaker in caves and so on. It just adds complexity without much benefit. It seems this is targeting very niche scenarios or no scenarios at all.
I hope you had a chance to look at my explanation on how to simplify the user interface/nomenclature for terrain effect and "tactic" modifiers without loosing any functionality. Some house keeping would really help on that front.
-
@djggml
map_name: the_pact_of_steel games: - {game_name: Pact of Steel, file_name: pact_of_steel.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 2, file_name: pact_of_steel_2.xml}
Do have a map.yml in the the_pact_of_steel folder, if not it sholuld look like this
-
Hi everyone! I forgot to post it here, but there is a new video where I talk about upcoming changes, mostly to unit abilities. Some abilities were removed, some are now affected by territory effects, and there are also some entirely new abilities, too.